get_site_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. It does add useful meaning about the returned values (startPageId may be null, previewBaseUrl is the admin preview origin), but says nothing about permissions, error states, or default-site fallback when site is omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines both returned fields and closes with the safety trait. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the two config fields an agent will receive, and the schema handles the sole parameter. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, though it omits any note on behavior when the site is unknown or lacks a configured start page.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the multisite fallback and the list_sites hint. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 3 baseline for high coverage applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource (get this site's configuration) and enumerates the exact fields returned (startPageId, previewBaseUrl), so an agent knows precisely what it fetches. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like set_start_page or list_sites, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the read counterpart to set_start_page. Only the implicit context of 'configuration' hints at usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.